Collegetown Bagels

• Mercer report: “Leading in turbulent times: The challenges, complexities and compensation of public university presidents” (recent analysis of public AAU institutions): Nearly 40% of these universities offer annual bonuses/incentives to presidents, with a median opportunity of ~30% of base salary. Incentives are increasingly tied to strategic goals, including fundraising, research growth, and student success—often encompassing capital projects and new facilities as part of institutional advancement. Deferred compensation (common at 80% of institutions) rewards long-term stability and growth initiatives like infrastructure.
  Link: https://www.mercer.com/en-us/insights/total-rewards/executive-compensation/leading-in-turbulent-times-the-challenges-complexities-and-compensation-of-public-university-presidents
• “Skin In The Game: Incentive pay and job performance in higher education” (2024 article/blog analyzing Big Ten peers): Discusses how some universities (e.g., Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, Rutgers) include incentive pay in presidential performance reviews, tying portions of compensation to measurable goals. While not always explicit on facilities, it critiques the lack of such metrics at places like Penn State amid major projects (e.g., stadium renovations), implying fundraising and capital success should influence pay.
  Link: https://barryfenchak.com/skin-in-the-game-incentive-pay-and-job-performance-in-higher-education
• UCSD Guardian op-ed: “Exorbitant Campus Construction Projects, Administrative Compensation: It’s Time to Demand Accountability” (2023): Criticizes how university administrations are “rewarded” for launching expensive capital projects (e.g., new buildings costing billions), often at the expense of other priorities like faculty salaries or maintenance. It argues this ties executive rewards indirectly to prioritizing new facilities over core academic needs.
  Link: https://ucsdguardian.org/2023/04/25/exorbitant-campus-construction-projects-administrative-compensation-its-time-to-demand-accountability
• The Atlantic: “Tuition Increases as Universities Spend More On New Buildings as Old Facilities Fall Into Disrepair” (2016, still relevant context): Explores the “arms race” in campus construction, where presidents push for new amenities/facilities to attract students/faculty, often funded by tuition hikes or debt. It notes how this contributes to administrative bloat and high executive pay, though not always via explicit incentives.
  Link: https://www.theatlantic.com/education/archive/2016/07/the-paradox-of-new-buildings-on-campus/492398
• Inside Higher Ed: “Study: Investment in public university presidents doesn’t mean return in philanthropy or state funding” (2019): Finds no direct link between higher presidential pay and better fundraising/state appropriations outcomes, but notes boards often justify pay with macro goals like successful capital campaigns or enrollment/infrastructure improvements.
  Link: https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2019/01/29/study-investment-public-university-presidents-doesnt-mean-return-philanthropy-or

Overall, explicit ties to “building new facilities” are more common indirectly—through fundraising targets, capital campaign success, or strategic growth metrics—rather than line-item bonuses for specific construction projects. Critics argue this can incentivize flashy new builds over maintenance or academics, while proponents see it as aligning pay with institutional advancement. Compensation data often comes from sources like the Chronicle of Higher Education’s annual surveys or CUPA-HR reports.